ICANN

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is responsible for managing
and coordinating the domain name system (DNS) of the internet. As part of its role, ICANN has
developed policies to address issues related to trademarks in the DNS.
1. ICANN is the global organization responsible for managing the domain name system
(DNS) of the internet.
2. ICANN develops policies to ensure the stability, security, and interoperability of the
DNS, as well as to promote competition and consumer choice.
3. ICANN policies cover a wide range of issues, including domain name registration,
dispute resolution, and privacy.
4. One of the most important ICANN policies is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP), which provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between
trademark owners and domain name registrants. The policy offers an expedited
administrative proceeding for trademark, holder to contest "abusive registrations of
domain names" and may result in the cancellation, suspension, or transfer of a domain
name by the registrar.
5. Another significant ICANN policy is the Generic Names Supporting Organization
(GNSO), which is responsible for developing policies related to generic top-level
domains (gTLDs).
6. ICANN policies are developed through a multi-stakeholder process, which involves input
from a variety of stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and civil society
organizations.
7. ICANN policies are subject to review and revision over time, as the internet and its
governance continue to evolve.
8. ICANN policies have a significant impact on the internet and its users, as they help to
ensure that the DNS is secure, stable, and accessible to all.
9. The ICANN has approved dispute resolution service providers.
- The world Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO);
- e-Resolution consortium ;
- The National Arbitration Forum (NAF);
 - CPR Institute of Dispute Resolution are only authorized providers.
10. The policy applies to registrations in the "Com": ".net" and ".Org" categories and is
incorporated by reference into registration agreement.

WIPO’S ROLE
- According to WIPO's 2020 UDRP statistics, it administered a total of 3,405 UDRP cases,
which accounted for over 80% of all UDRP cases filed globally that year.
- It administers cases involving the abusive registration of domain names that are identical
or confusingly similar to trademarks. Since the inception of the UDRP in 1999, WIPO
has been the leading provider of UDRP dispute resolution services.
- The data shows the popularity of ICANN’s streamlined procedure. This caseload
continues to grow year on year, and thus reflects the increasing importance of domain
name disputes in the digital economy.

ADVANTAGES OF ICANN
ICANN policy advantages:
 Cost-Effective as domain name disputes cost $1,000 to $3,500
 Post the submissions the Respondents have to answer complaints within 20 days
 Quick dispute resolution as Panel decides in 45 days.
 The parties might choose one or three ICANN-approved intellectual property experts as
arbitrators.
 The panel will rule solely on the parties' filings. Unless necessary, UDRP rules prohibit
physical presence.
 Electronic filings may be used throughout the proceedings.

The "BAD FAITH" criteria under ICANN's policy provides for 3 elements to be established for
the complainant to obtain relief.
a) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or series mark in which the Complainant has rights.
b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
c) Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

2|Page
The policy also provides the following “inclusive factors” for determining "bad faith
registration and use":
a) With the intent of disrupting the complainant’s business operations;
b) To prevent the owner of the trademark from registering a domain name containing the
trademark;
c) registering a domain name with the intention of selling it later for a profit;
d) Using the domain name to attract Internet users to one's website creating a likelihood of
confusion with complainant's trade mark.
Such factors are inclusive and Arbitration panel has the discretion to rely on the factors to
determine "bad faith", such as the fact that the registrant of domain name has provided false
contract details to the registrar with a view to ensuring that no notice would be served on him by
the owner of the "trade mark owner.

CASE LAWS

The Tate Org. Case

- In the TATA case, the WIPO Administrative Panel ordered Net work Solutions Inc.
(NSI) to transfer the domain name tata.org to the complainant, Tata Sons Ltd. The panel
relied on Indian court decisions favoring the complainant and protecting the TATA
trademark from abusive registrations. The panel also determined that the respondent's
lack of website activation was indicative of bad faith.

The Trident Hotel Case

In the instance of trident hotels, Oberoi Hotels, which owns the trademarks "TRIDENT" and
"TRIDENT HOTELS" in India, was the complainant. The complainant demonstrated that it
possessed common law rights in numerous other jurisdictions. In addition to denying that the
complainant had any rights to said trademark, the respondent argued that it planned to acquire
hotels in the future.

The panel determined that the use of the word TRIDENT in conjunction with the word "hotel"

3|Page
has a distinctive quality because, in everyday language, it suggests a hotel chain such as the
complainant's group. It was improbable that the respondent intended to establish hotels with the
names TRIDENT HOTEL or THE TRIDENT HOTEL given the use of the plural in the domain
name. "triden hotel.com" indicates that the domain name was intended for a hotel chain.
According to the panel, this was indicative of poor faith. In addition, the tribunal observed that
the respondent had not provided an explanation for his choice of domain name.

For reasons relating to national security, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) houses a
specialist section known as the Network Monitoring Centre (NMC), which monitors and tracks
all network traffic for national security purposes.

Functions of the NMC:

a) Monitoring in real time all of the traffic on the network in order to discover any
potentially suspicious activities or dangers to national security.
b) Producing alerts and reports of prospective threats and occurrences in order to take
immediate action.
c) Sharing information and coordinating investigations with other law enforcement agencies
and other stakeholders requires collaboration between these groups.
d) Activities in research and development carried out in order to increase the efficacy and
efficiency of investigations into cybercrime.
e) Boosting situational awareness, boosting threat detection, and permitting fast and
efficient responses to cyber events are some of the primary responsibilities of the
National Mission Center (NMC), which plays an essential part in the process of
bolstering India's cybersecurity infrastructure.

4|Page
5|Page
 10 COMMANDMENTS

The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics were first proposed by the Computer Ethics
Institute in 1992. These guidelines were developed to provide a framework for ethical behavior
in the use of computers and related technologies. The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics
are as follows:
1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people: this commandment emphasizes the
importance of using computers and technology responsibly and avoiding any actions that
could cause harm or injury to others. By injury it also implies corrupting or harming the
data of others.
2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work: this underscores the need to
respect others' privacy and property rights in the use of their computers. Using any mode
like that of virus, malicious software, overloading memory to disrupt the work of other is
covered here.
3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's computer files: it emphasizes the
importance of respecting the privacy of others and avoiding any unauthorized access like
that of spying into their computer files. Howver, it provides an exemption for
investigating agents & agencies.
4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal: it emphasizes the importance of respecting the
property rights of others and avoiding any actions that could result in theft or
unauthorized use of computer resources & one should not use the technology to steal
information or ddata like bank details, illegal fund transfers etc.
5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness: it emphasizes the importance of
honesty and integrity. The acts like that of spreading misinformation, false
advertisements are unethical.
6. Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid: This commandment
emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and avoiding any
unauthorized use or distribution of software.
7. Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization or proper
compensation: emphasizes the importance of respecting the property rights of others and
avoiding any unauthorized use or abuse of their computer resources. Unethical to hack or

6|Page
 access data, breaking into passwords etc.
8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output: emphasizes the importance
of respecting intellectual property rights and avoiding any actions that could result in the
unauthorized use or distribution of someone else's creative work, programme designs etc.
9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the
system you are designing: emphasizes the importance of considering the broader social
impact of computer programs and systems like that of video games, animations etc. and
designing them with ethical considerations in mind.
10. Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your
fellow humans: emphasizes the importance of using computers and technology in a
responsible and respectful manner that considers the needs and interests of others. Be
courteous and give due considerations.
In conclusion, the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics provide a framework for ethical
behavior in the use of computers and related technologies. By following these guidelines,
individuals can use technology in a responsible and respectful manner that considers the needs
and interests of others.

NETIQUETTE

Netiquette, short for "Internet etiquette," refers to the guidelines for appropriate behavior when
communicating online, especially through email, social media, or forums. Following netiquette
helps to maintain a positive and respectful online community.
- Social code of network communication
- Etiquette in technology, i.e., socially acceptable conduct in digital world.
- Facilitates interaction over networks
- Avoid flamewars and spams are basics
- Group e-mail sent wrongly by Cerner CEO Neal Patterson led to falling in stock price by
22% [pg 38]
The basic rules of netiquette include:
1. Respect others: This involves being courteous and polite when interacting with others
online, even if you disagree with their opinions.

7|Page
 2. Use appropriate language and tone: Avoid using profanity, sarcasm, or other forms of
offensive language that could be hurtful or insulting to others.
3. Be mindful of your audience: Consider the age, cultural background, and educational
level of your audience when communicating online, and adjust your language and tone
accordingly.
4. Use proper grammar and spelling: This shows that you value clear and effective
communication, and helps to avoid confusion or misinterpretation of your messages.
5. Don't spam or flood: Avoid sending unsolicited messages or posting repetitive messages
that could be seen as spam.
6. Avoid flame wars: Don't engage in online arguments or debates that could become heated
or hostile, as this can lead to hurt feelings and a negative online community.
7. Protect your privacy: Avoid sharing personal information online that could be used by
others to harm you or your reputation.
By following these basic rules of netiquette, individuals can communicate online in a positive
and respectful manner, helping to build a healthy and supportive online community.

8|Page
 DATA PROTECTION BILL

On April 11, 2023, the Union government informed the Supreme Court that the Digital Personal
Data Protection Bill 2022, which protects online privacy, is "ready". Multiple drafts have been
published till date and the 4th draft was published on 18.11.22.

“The new Bill will be tabled in the Monsoon Session of Parliament in July,” Union Attorney-
General R. Venkataramani told a Constitution Bench led by Justice KM Joseph.

If passed by Parliament, the proposed Bill would replace the 2011 Information Technology
(Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information)
Rules. In 2017, the Supreme Court declared privacy a basic right and stressed the importance of
online data privacy.

The 2022 Bill "provides for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognises
both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process personal data
for lawful purposes".

The new Bill defines data as “representation of information, facts, concepts, opinions or
instructions in a manner suitable for communication, interpretation or processing by humans or
by automated means”.

The Bill defines data fiduciary as the person who decides the purpose and means of processing
personal data, data principal as the person to whom the data pertains, and data processor as any
person who processes personal data on behalf of a data fiduciary.
- This bill departs from the GPDR model of privacy laws

Applicability:
- Digitised Personal Data collected online or offline
- Processing of personal data outside India, if it is w.r.t. any pricipals in India or activity
offering goods/ services within India

9|Page
 - Exempts individuals outside india u/Cross border Contractual Agreement covering the
offshore/outsourcing industries
- Fails to define Sensitive Personal Data
- DPA referred to as Data Protection Board of India (DPBI)
- The bill provides for explicit consent and legitimate interest but the same are subject to
various crticisms [necessary and voluntary processing of data]
- Children defined at below 18 yers of age
- Provides for the rights and duties of data principals
- The concept of Significant Data Fiduciary has been retained [Pg 25]

ISSUES/ CRITICISMS

1. Necessity vis-à-vis legitimacy: the grounds are vague. Legitimate interest forms the heart
of any privacy legislation for collecting and processing of any personal data, so crucial.
2. Provide notice to data subject: also vague as, as per the current draft the notice
requirements apply only when consent is being obtained. ‘Deemed consent’ for other
grounds. Usually the data subjects anyways has no choice but to give consent.
3. DPBI’s power to make and pass regulations is also debatable and not certain. Powers of
DPBI shall be spelled out in greater details.
4. Blank ban on children’s activity: unreasonable for such ban on the internet activities and
behavioural advertising.
5. GoI’s power to exempt its agencies from the provisions of this act: no reasonable or
proportionate grounds provided.
6. Government can delete data as per its need: blanket exemption to GoI without nay
requirement of specific clarifications.
7. DPBI’s composition not provided
Hope that the govt. will work with the professionals in the field of privacy technology and law
and the issues will be ironed out in the upcoming future.

10 | P a g e
 PUTTUSWAMY

In a unanimous decision, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has established that
the right to privacy is constitutionally protected in India and is incidental to other freedoms
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. In the matter of the case brought forth by retired High
Court Judge Puttaswamy, the Government's proposed scheme for a uniform biometrics-based
identity card, which would be mandatory for access to government services and benefits, was
challenged. In the case at hand, the Government contended that the Constitution does not provide
explicit safeguard for the right to privacy. In the present case, the Court has opined that the right
to privacy is an essential aspect of the fundamental freedom or liberty guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. The Court has observed that as per Article 21, no individual can
be deprived of their personal liberty or life except in accordance with the procedure established
by law.

While the Aadhar Act was considered as constitutionally valid, the argument of government that
privacy has not been guaranteed under the F.Rs was rejected. Right to privacy was considered as
an integral part already included in Part III.
- Intrinsic part of Right to life
- Sexual orientation is an essential attribute to privacy

Overruled:
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench)
- Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (a five-judge bench)
- ADM Jabalpur case

11 | P a g e